Indira Sawhney Judgement

The Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) judgement, popularly known as the Mandal Commission case, is one of the most significant rulings delivered by the Supreme Court of India concerning reservations in public employment and the broader issue of social justice under the Indian Constitution. Decided by a nine-judge Bench on 16 November 1992, this landmark decision upheld the validity of 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in government services while simultaneously laying down key constitutional principles to regulate the implementation of reservation policies in India.

Background and Historical Context

The origins of the Indira Sawhney case can be traced to the recommendations of the Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission), constituted in 1979 under the chairmanship of B.P. Mandal. The Commission was established under Article 340 of the Constitution to identify socially and educationally backward classes and recommend measures for their advancement.
In 1980, the Mandal Commission submitted its report, recommending:

• 27% reservation in central government services and public sector undertakings for Other Backward Classes;
• Reservation to be extended to educational institutions;
• The total reservation for all categories (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and OBCs) not to exceed 50%;
• Periodic review of the list of backward classes.

For nearly a decade, the recommendations remained unimplemented until Prime Minister V.P. Singh announced their adoption in August 1990, triggering widespread protests across the country. The implementation of the Mandal recommendations led to extensive political debate and social unrest, eventually prompting multiple legal challenges before the Supreme Court.

Constitutional Provisions Involved

The case primarily concerned the interpretation of:

• Article 14 – Equality before law;
• Article 15(4) – Special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes;
• Article 16(4) – Reservation of appointments or posts in favour of backward classes of citizens;
• Article 340 – Appointment of a Commission to investigate the conditions of backward classes.

The central issue before the Court was whether the 27% reservation for OBCs under the Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India violated the constitutional principle of equality and whether economic criteria could be a basis for identifying backwardness.

Issues before the Supreme Court

The key legal questions considered by the nine-judge Bench were:

1. Whether Article 16(4) is an exception to Article 16(1) or merely an enabling provision.
2. Whether the identification of “backward classes” should be based solely on social and educational backwardness, or if economic backwardness could also be a factor.
3. Whether caste can be a valid indicator for determining backwardness.
4. Whether reservation in promotions is constitutionally valid.
5. Whether the total quantum of reservations can exceed 50%.
6. Whether the ‘creamy layer’ among backward classes should be excluded from the benefits of reservation.

Judgement and Key Findings

The Supreme Court delivered a majority decision (6:3) upholding the constitutional validity of the 27% reservation for OBCs, subject to certain conditions and clarifications. The key rulings are as follows:

1. Reservation for OBCs Upheld: The Court upheld the 27% reservation for socially and educationally backward classes in central government services as constitutionally valid under Article 16(4).
2. Article 16(4) is not an Exception: The Court clarified that Article 16(4) is not an exception to the general principle of equality under Article 16(1), but rather an enabling provision intended to ensure substantive equality by addressing social disadvantages.
3. Caste as a Basis of Backwardness: The Court accepted that caste could be a legitimate criterion for identifying backwardness in Indian society, given the country’s historical and social realities. However, it emphasised that caste alone should not be the sole determinant; other factors such as economic and educational indicators must also be considered.
4. Exclusion of the ‘Creamy Layer’: One of the most significant aspects of the judgement was the introduction of the “creamy layer” principle. The Court directed that the advanced sections among OBCs—those who are economically and socially better off—should be excluded from the benefits of reservation. This ensured that the benefits reach the truly disadvantaged segments.
5. 50% Cap on Reservations: The Court laid down that the total reservation in public employment should not ordinarily exceed 50%. This was justified on the grounds that excessive reservation would violate the principle of equality. Only in extraordinary circumstances, such as specific regional or demographic peculiarities, could this limit be exceeded.
6. Reservation in Promotions Invalid: The Court struck down reservation in promotions, holding that Article 16(4) permits reservation only in initial appointments, not in promotional posts. However, this position was later modified by the 77th Constitutional Amendment (1995), which inserted Article 16(4A), restoring reservation in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
7. Economic Criteria Alone Insufficient: The Court rejected the idea that economic backwardness alone could justify reservation. It held that social and educational backwardness are the primary criteria under the constitutional framework, though economic indicators may assist in identification.
8. Periodic Review of Backward Classes: The judgement recommended that the list of backward classes be reviewed every ten years to ensure that only genuinely disadvantaged groups benefit from reservations.

Bench Composition

The nine-judge Bench comprised:

• Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy (author of the majority opinion)
• Justices M.H. Kania (Chief Justice), M.N. Venkatachaliah, A.M. Ahmadi, K. Ramaswamy, S. Ratnavel Pandian, P.B. Sawant, S. Thommen, and B.L. Hansaria.

Justice Jeevan Reddy’s opinion, speaking for the majority, provided the definitive exposition on the constitutional philosophy of equality and social justice.

Aftermath and Legislative Developments

The Indira Sawhney judgement had far-reaching implications for India’s reservation policy and socio-political structure. Following the ruling:

• The Central Government implemented the 27% OBC quota in central services.
• The National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) was established in 1993 to oversee the identification and welfare of OBCs.
• The 77th, 81st, 82nd, and 85th Constitutional Amendments were enacted to restore or extend reservations in promotions and relaxations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• The creamy layer principle became a cornerstone of reservation policy for OBCs and was later applied in other contexts, including education.

Constitutional Significance

The Indira Sawhney judgement is a constitutional milestone in defining the balance between formal equality and substantive equality. It reaffirmed the commitment of the Indian state to the ideal of social justice, while also imposing constitutional discipline on affirmative action measures. The decision entrenched the concept that equality under Article 14 is not merely about treating equals equally but also about removing structural inequalities that prevent certain groups from competing on equal terms.
It also established judicial safeguards to prevent misuse or excessive expansion of reservation policies by mandating periodic reviews and the exclusion of the creamy layer.

Continuing Relevance

Even decades after its pronouncement, the Indira Sawhney judgement continues to shape debates on affirmative action in India. Later developments—such as reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) under the 103rd Constitutional Amendment (2019)—have reignited discussions on the boundaries and principles set by this case. Courts have repeatedly referred to Indira Sawhney while adjudicating on issues of reservation in education, employment, and promotions.